Although he may be overridden on this veto---Pres. Bush has done the right thing!

"In a message to lawmakers, the president noted that the House passed a $14 billion bill and the Senate a $15 billion bill, yet the conference committee compromised not by splitting the difference but by pumping it up to $23 billion, including 900 projects. "This bill lacks fiscal discipline," he said, adding, "American taxpayers should not be asked to support a pork-barrel system of federal authorization and funding where a project's merit is an afterthought." YES!!!!!!!

This is a shot to BOTH parties who support this bloated and flawed bill. One powerful Democrat---Russ Feingold---actually applauds Pres. Bush for his veto of this bill:

"Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin applauded Bush for vetoing a "flawed, bloated bill. Instead of trying to override the veto, Congress should take this opportunity to fix the bill."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/...l9O66bqj4E1vAI

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

__________________
“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007

Well gawlee gee - I guess even an idiot does the right thing sometimes....

Nah, I shouldn't say that - Bushie's right on this one, and I commend him for finally standing up and "doing right thing" on this issue of fiscal sanity.

I mean, I gotta get real too, right? I just wish he'd started doing this, like, six years ago.

That "conference" process is a real freakin' problem - I mean, that's where these last-minute wording changes get introduced, as JP is correctly pointing out, and it's also where bills get finalized in the middle of the night with no oversight and no debate.

Something about that "conference process", is very wrong. What it essentially does, is strip away any protections on the rights of the political minority. So, I mean, today that would be the Republicans in the House, but tomorrow it might be the Democrats again, and I mean - yeah, this type of stuff creates real problems in terms of the "partisanship" we see in politics.

Well, so, that's two vetos in a row, huh? Hmmm..... the financial market types usually set their threshold at "three", so, I suppose I'll have to watch for that third one....

I know the Dems love to spend, but I wish we had more fiscally conservative Repubs so this kind of pork could be blocked. I didn't see a breakdown in the voting.

Fully agreed. It's like, these 'Pubs turned into socialists or something, when Bushie got into office. I mean, think about it, these guys have spent more money than any other administration in history, bar none.

You know, like take all the "liberal" administrations, put 'em all together, and they're still not as bad as these Neo-Con clowns.

I mean, this stuff is unconscionable, right? We're mortgaging our kids' lives with this stuff - and then, as if that weren't bad enough, we've got these clowns in office that can't implement, so basically, they're wasting and frauding twice as much percentually as any other administration would.....

Yeah, it's enough to make me wanna take a sledge-hammer to the whole Republican Party apparatus - just destroy the (*)(*)(*)(*) thing and start over, know what I'm sayin'?

I mean, well, and then the weasels on the other side are even worse, so it's like, how do We the People deal with this stuff? There's gotta be lots of people out there, that are just like you and me, that are concerned about basic, fundamental things like "fiscal sanity"

I'll betcha if you polled around, you'd find that like 80% of the People (ie an "overwhelming majority") would say that the government is spending too much money.

So, it's like, where do these guys get off, contravening the People's will?

You know? It's like, vote 'em all out of office and start over. Get someone in there that wants to be responsible to the People.

I mean, there's a serious problem when the voter gets the impression that he "can't win", no matter which way he votes. Right?

Umm, I don't know the breakdown, but I'm betting a majority of the Repubs vote against this pork. You want to throw all them out too?

Well, look - I mean, these are the exact same guys who've been piling on the pork, for the last six years -

And now suddenly they're "against it"?

I'm sorry, but that one doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't even pass the laugh test....

Come on Glitch, they're doing this for political purposes, to try to make the Democrats look bad. They don't really give a rat's patootie about how much of our money they spend. Jeez.....

I mean, what would you do, if you saw a six-year pattern, and suddenly it changed? You'd be a "little skeptical", wouldn't you?

Yeah - I mean, the exact same guys that are voting against this, roday, are the exact same guys that would have voted for it, yesterday. And the Prez - no different. Yesterday he would have signed it, and today he's gonna veto it.

I mean, people do change, right? Maybe the guy had an epiphany and finally got a clue.... who knows. Stranger things have happened. But I am skeptical.....

You know whats funny. Regardless of party, it seems to me most Americans are for fiscal discipline and against higher taxes.

Seems odd that Hillary has promised to raise taxes this early. My guess is that will overtake Iraq as the most important issue of 2008.

As fitting as it is to associate democrats with big government, most democrats I know try to pass off the democratic party as having more fiscal discipline than republicans. I think democrats are as much against the alternative minimum tax as republicans are against reversing the bush tax cuts.

I think, despite the coverage of issues such as national security, health care, immigration, ect.. the candidate who seems the most likely to reduce the size of government will be in office in 2009.

I truely believe that despite the differences between the parties, most Americans would prefer a small less intrusive government than the bloated inefficient beast we have today.

I hope republicans can capitalize on that in 2008, we sure as heck are not doing enough now, and Hillary sure isn't going to.

"I" think you're spot-on.

The "left" might disagree with you though, I mean, they're all into "social programs" and stuff, right? They like "partnership" between the government and individuals, and they kinda look at the "bloated, inefficient" part, as a "necessary evil".

But yeah, I think in today's world, "even some on the left", as you say, are kinda looking at this behemoth, going, "wait a minute, something's wrong here"..... Just as some of the Reps are looking at the Bush things with torture and all the rest of it, and saying, "wait a minute, something's wrong here"....

So I mean, these "tents" are undergoing a considerable amount of shuffling right now, yes?

See, I mean, this is the thing - if I had "a party", or "a candidate" to vote for, that could somehow "separate" the good part of each Party's platform, from the "bad part" - like for instance, here's a combination you won't find out there - how about we keep the Bush tax cuts, and impose PayGo?

Do both of those at the same time... and you've done a lot of good, right? But that would be "politically impossible", 'cause when you look on both sides of the aisle, the choice they're framing for you is a "package deal" -

It's like, you can't have the PayGo and the tax cuts, right?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...,3495278.story

Thank you GWB for trying.


Fight on fiscal conservatives. We need more of you in Congress.

You know, I think the "left" as you put it, speak for a very small portion of our country. I think a large portion of democrats aren't the "left" in that sense. That's why Hillary will not win and the wisest thing the democrats can do is nominate someone else.

The Hillary machine is still running against Bush. I would assume that most democrats are against big government spending and are voting against republicans on military spending in Iraq in much the same way as republicans are voting against entitlement programs.

The difference of course, is someday we will no longer be in Iraq. Entitlement programs never die. If our success in Iraq continues, I believe that will become more apparent, and the democrats will struggle a bit. I think the left loons are really out of touch with mainstream Americans.

I think that is why Hillary has tried to not commit on many issues. The thing is, she needs the radical left to win but the more she appeals to them the more she will distance herself from the middle.

The best thing the democrats can do is be anti republican policy and for absolutely nothing. The more they pander to their insane constituency the more they shoot themselves in the foot.

You mean we would have to *gasp* cut government spending? That would be terrible.